Should you instead follow what you believe to be correct.
2007-03-14 23:55:49 · 10 answers · asked by Octavius 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Yes, it is morally correct to follow the laws set by your country.
If there is a law that you believe to be unjust and has a direct effect on you as a person, you are welcome to work to reform or change that law.
Law is the basis of civilization.
2007-03-15 00:05:36 · answer #1 · answered by pepper 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think your question brings up lots of interesting questions. For instance if your country makes a law forbidding the practice of a certain religion, are you morally correct in if you wish to continue following that religion? The death penalty is another issue, birth control, abortion etc. All these things come to mind, and I would have to say yes you are morally obligated to follow the law, but you are also morally obligated to protest these things that you disagree with. For instance I disagree with the abortion laws in my state. Does that mean I can break the law by not following the state's laws. No, but I can send letter to my Representatives and write letter to the newspaper and even go to an abortion clinic and protest if I follow the laws in doing so. If I go over the line and break the laws, then I am morally wrong. That is how I feel about it. Like my freshman civics's teacher said, I have all the rights and freedoms in the world, until I infringe on someone else's freedoms and rights. I can say what ever I wish until I offend or slander someone. I can throw out my fist and as long as I do not frighten or hit someone else, it is OK to do that. But if I frighten or hit someone, then I have to pay the piper as they say. So basically what it comes down to is yes you should follow what you believe to be correct as long as you do not offend, threaten, or break the laws that are in effect for your country.
2007-03-15 00:19:53 · answer #2 · answered by redhotboxsoxfan 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No matter what anyone else may tell you, it is morally correct to follow the laws set by your country. If there is a law you disagree with, follow the proper procedures to attempt to change the law but, you must abide by that law unless you want to suffer the penalties set forth to protect the law.
2007-03-15 00:06:40 · answer #3 · answered by dadof7n2001 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it is morally correct to follow the laws in the country in which you are residing.
2007-03-14 23:59:29 · answer #4 · answered by danny_boy_jones 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Do you have a choice? The Government set laws are relevant for that country and you can't change it or go against it. If the laws are to be changed, please follow proper procedures of your country. If it is a democaratic government, change the Government and if it is not... well.. try other means.
2007-03-15 00:02:14 · answer #5 · answered by AdultMale 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Like Martin Luther King said we have the duty to follow just laws, but not unjust laws.
2007-03-14 23:58:46 · answer #6 · answered by TE 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes
2007-03-15 00:01:58 · answer #7 · answered by Dr Universe 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Using your logic, all the pedophiles on dateline would get a pass to have sex with young children. I'll stay with obeying the law of the land.
2007-03-15 00:00:17 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
what number administrations may you want to bypass back on for torture? How about the Clinton administration......Michael Scheuer replaced right into a senior CIA good in the counter terrorist center. He created the CIA's Osama bin encumbered unit and helped set up the rendition software in the course of the Clinton administration. SCHEUER suggested ......basically, the nationwide protection Council gave us the project: take down those cells, dismantle them and take human beings off the streets so one won't be able to kill human beings. they basically did not provide us everywhere to take the human beings when we captured them. So the CIA all started flying suspects to Egypt and Jordan. Scheuer says renditions were licensed by ability of Clinton's nationwide protection Council and officials in the Congress, and all understood what it meant to deliver suspects to those countries. they could be tortured. The rendition coverage instituted by ability of President Clinton, wherein the CIA flies suspected terrorists to their homestead countries and infrequently to U.S. bases for interrogation. Please bear in options that Clinton replaced into provided Osama Bin Ladin yet refused him because he replaced into too in contact about his legacy & all of us know what befell because of that do not we!!!
2016-12-02 01:07:17 · answer #9 · answered by troxell 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you want that move and start your own country. If you can't do that then GET REAL. Our country, our laws. Don't like it? LEAVE......
2007-03-15 00:00:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋